third addendum precise development plan and … · macario canyon pipeline alignment modification...

THIRD ADDENDUM

PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 03-05)

CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA

State Clearinghouse No. 2004041081

EIR Certified June 13, 2006

Prepared for:

San Diego County Water Authority

4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, California 92123

Prepared by:

Dudek 605 Third Street

Encinitas, California 92024

September 2013

EXHIBIT 1

Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project September 2013 Third CEQA Addendum i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. I

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1

2.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 5

3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING ............................................ 7

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECT ...................................................... 13

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ..................... 15

6.0 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ACTIONS .................................. 23

7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................... 25

8.0 ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 27

9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 43

10.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ....................................................................... 49

11.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 51

12.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 53

FIGURES

1 Regional Map .................................................................................................................... 9

2 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 11

3 Macario Tunnel Easements–City Of Carlsbad Option .................................................... 17

4 Proposed Macario Tunnel Design Station 101+50.00 to Station 117+73.72 .................. 19

5 Faraday Avenue Macario Tunnel Pit Site Plan ............................................................... 21

Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project September 2013 Third CEQA Addendum ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCC California Coastal Commission

CCR California Code of Regulations

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CO2 carbon dioxide

dB decibel

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPS Encina Power Station

ERP Emergency Response Plan

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report

GHG greenhouse gas

GHG Plan Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

mgd million gallon per day

MMRP Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

PDP Precise Development Plan

REC Renewable Energy Credit

SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TOVWTP Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant

Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority

Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project September 2013 Third CEQA Addendum 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT BACKGROUND

The City of Carlsbad prepared and certified the Carlsbad Precise Development Plan (PDP) and

Desalination Plant Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (City of Carlsbad 2006), and

approved a First Addendum (City of Carlsbad 2009). Subsequently, the San Diego County

Water Authority prepared and approved a Second Addendum (Water Authority 2012) for the

Carlsbad Desalination Project (Project). The FEIR analyzed all components of the Project,

including a 50 million gallon per day (mgd) seawater desalination plant and off-site water

conveyance facilities located within the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista. The First

Addendum documented changes to the footprint of the desalination plant and off-site water

conveyance facilities. The Second Addendum documented the change in environmental

impacts associated with the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) modifications

(located in unincorporated San Diego County), Pipeline 3 relining, aqueduct connection point

modifications, Pipeline 4 vent replacement and pipeline interconnect, and the Macario Canyon

pipeline alignment modification and pumping well. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Carlsbad was the lead agency for the preparation

of the FEIR and First Addendum. The FEIR documented that agencies other than the City of

Carlsbad will use the FEIR when making a decision on aspects of the Project that require their

approval. As noted in Section 3.4.2 of the FEIR, the product water created at the seawater

desalination plant would be transmitted to local and/or regional storage and distribution

systems. The delivery area for the product water was expected to include a number of local

water agencies, municipalities, and the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) and

its member agencies. The Project described in the FEIR included the construction of new off-

site pipelines that would need to be constructed to convey the product water to the City of

Carlsbad, neighboring water agencies, and/or the Water Authority. Although multiple alternative

pipeline alignments were analyzed by the City of Carlsbad in the FEIR, the analysis did not

include potential impacts associated with modifying the Water Authority’s facilities that would

convey product water to the Water Authority distribution facilities (City of Carlsbad 2006).

The Water Authority has determined that minor changes to the Macario Canyon pipeline

alignment are preferred in order to allow for greater pipeline operational efficiency and reliability,

while also relocating the pumping well from the center of Macario Canyon to a location east of

Faraday Avenue and outside of Macario Canyon. Pursuant to Section 15381 of CEQA, the

Water Authority is a responsible agency for the preparation of this Third Addendum to the

Project’s FEIR. The purpose of this Third Addendum is to evaluate the potential for

environmental effects of the Water Authority’s proposed minor modifications to the approved

project and to determine if these modifications would result in any new significant impacts or

any substantial increase in the severity of impacts addressed under the certified FEIR, as

amended by the First Addendum and the Second Addendum.


To enhance the reliability of deliveries from the Project to the Water Authority’s aqueduct

system, the Water Authority is proposing minor modifications to the Project scope previously

approved in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. Specifically, this includes an

alternative pipeline alignment and facilities additions near Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue.

These improvements are under consideration to ensure the desalinated product water can be

reliably integrated into the Water Authority’s existing regional distribution system. A description

and purpose for each of these modifications is further discussed in Section 5.0.

On June 13, 2006, the City of Carlsbad approved the FEIR for the land use approvals to construct

and operate the approximately 50 mgd Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant (desalination plant)

adjacent to the Encina Power Station (EPS). The FEIR also analyzed 17.4 miles of off-site

conveyance pipelines, as well as ancillary facilities to carry and store product water from the

desalination plant (City of Carlsbad 2006). The FEIR included analysis of multiple options for the

water conveyance pipelines, to allow for flexibility in the final design. To ensure that all impacts

associated with the ultimate pipeline alignment were addressed, the FEIR considered at an equal

level of detail the impacts associated with two primary pipeline alignment options, as well as

several sub-alignments, though only one alignment was actually going to be built.

On September 15, 2009, the City of Carlsbad approved an Addendum to the FEIR (First

Addendum), which documented changes to the footprint of the desalination plant and off-site

water conveyance facilities. The pipeline alignment considered under the First Addendum

consisted of approximately 16.2 miles of pipeline (a 7% reduction from the pipeline length

analyzed in the FEIR). Additionally, with the pipeline alignment addressed under the First

Addendum, environmental impacts associated with several segments of pipeline that were

evaluated and mitigated for in the FEIR were avoided. Thus, the proposed project under the

First Addendum represented reduced environmental impacts as compared to the impacts

covered under the FEIR (City of Carlsbad 2009).

On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority approved the Second Addendum to the FEIR,

which documented changes to the footprint associated with the TOVWTP modifications,

Pipeline 3 relining, aqueduct connection point modifications, Pipeline 4 modifications, and the

Macario Canyon pipeline alignment modification and pumping well. Modifications to TOVWTP

included a new valve vault structure on Pipeline 3, a new pipeline to connect Pipeline 3 to

existing water storage tanks, a chemical injection and monitoring station and pump well, as

well as a new flow-control facility and pipeline. Pipeline 3 modifications included the

replacement of a 500 ft section and the relining of a 5.5 mile segment. Aqueduct Connection

Point modifications included the installation of valves in Pipelines 3 and 4, a flow meter and

appurtenant piping. Pipeline 4 modifications included the replacement of a vent structure

along the pipeline, and the addition of a pipeline to connect Pipelines 3 and 4. The Macario

Canyon Pipeline modifications included a shift in the location of the pipeline approximately

1,000 feet to the south and the addition of a pumping well to be installed alongside the


pipeline. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in impacts were found to

result from these modifications (Water Authority 2012). The proposed project under the

Second Addendum represented reduced environmental impacts as compared to the impacts

covered under the FEIR.


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


2.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS

California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), Sections 15162 through

15164 discuss a lead or responsible agency’s responsibilities in handling new information that

was not included in a Project’s FEIR. The provisions of Section 15164 apply to the Water

Authority as the responsible agency under CEQA because the proposed modifications to the

Project involve actions that are under the purview of the Water Authority.

Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:

(a) When an EIR has been certified…for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for

that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in

the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major

revisions of the previous EIR…due to the involvement of new significant

environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously

identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the

project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR …

due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial

increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not

have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the

previous EIR was certified as complete…shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the

previous EIR;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe

than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible

would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more

significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to

adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from

those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or

more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents

decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Alternatively, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously approved FEIR, but

none of the changes or additions meet the standards as provided for, a subsequent EIR pursuant to


CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, then the lead or responsible agency is directed to prepare an

addendum to the FEIR. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164). Further, the addendum should include

a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162,”

and that “explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section

15164(e)). The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may simply be attached to

the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(c)).

This Third Addendum to the FEIR fulfills and conforms to the provisions of CEQA (California Public

Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, providing for

the preparation of an addendum. The CEQA Guidelines allow the preparation of an addendum to an

EIR under the following circumstances (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

1. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under

consideration adequate;

2. The changes and additions to the EIR do not raise important new issues about

significant effects on the environment;

3. None of the conditions described in Section 15162, CEQA Guidelines, calling for the

preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.


3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING

The Macario Canyon Pipeline Alignment Modification would be located south of the intersection of

Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, and ancillary facilities would be installed

in an open space area outside of Macario Canyon, east of Faraday Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad

(see Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map) . The major ancillary facilities include an

access road off of Faraday Avenue, a pump well and air release vault, a blow off valve vault, several

vents, and a storm drain with a riprap energy dissipater.

Campo

ImperialBeach

ChulaVista

NationalCity

Bonita

Coronado

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

SanMarcos Escondido

VistaValleyCenter

Camp PendletonSouth Hidden

MeadowsOceanside

Bonsall

CampPendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho SanDiegoSpring

Valley

Casa deOro-Mount Helix

AlpineHarbisonCanyon

Lakeside PineValley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San DiegoCountryEstates

Julian

SanClemente

DanaPoint

San JuanCapistrano

LagunaNiguel

AlisoViejo

gunaeach

LagunaHills Coto De

Caza

RanchoSanta Margarita

MissionViejo

TrabucoHighlands

ElToro

El ToroStation

ne

tinhills

Temecula

ThousPalm

Perris

o ona

CathedralCityPalm

Springs

Wildomar

LakeElsinore

WinchesterSunCity

Idyllwild-Pine CoveEast

HemetHemet

SanJacinto

RanchoMirage

Nuevo

Santa Ysabel

Riverside County

Orange County

Orange

County

San Diego

CountySan Diego County

Riverside County

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

M E X I C OM E X I C O

74

905

241

274

209

73

163

56

75

111

52

243

371

67

94

7679

78

15

8

215

805

5

FIGURE 1Regional Map

7662 Third Addendum, Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-05)

0 155 10Miles

Project Site

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: Z

:\Pro

ject

s\j7

6620

1\M

AP

DO

C\M

APS

\Add

endu

m\A

dden

dum

Fig

1 R

egio

nal.m

xd

5

FIGURE 2Vicinity Map

7662 Third Addendum, Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-05)

0 2,000Feet

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: Z

:\Pro

ject

s\j7

6620

1\M

AP

DO

C\M

APS

\Add

endu

m\A

dden

dum

Fig

2 V

ic.m

xd

Project Site


4.0 DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECT

In 2006, the City of Carlsbad approved an amendment to the PDP for the EPS to obtain land use

approvals to construct and operate an approximately 50 mgd desalination plant and other

appurtenant and ancillary water and support facilities to produce potable water. The Carlsbad

Desalination Plant is to be located on the EPS site, adjacent to the existing power plant, located

immediately south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, within the City of Carlsbad, in northern San

Diego County. As approved in 2006, several pipeline routes would distribute product water from

the Carlsbad Desalination Plant to the City of Carlsbad and various local and regional water

agencies, including the Water Authority.

The FEIR analyzed multiple off-site pipeline alignments through portions of Carlsbad,

Oceanside, and Vista. In 2009, the City of Carlsbad approved the First Addendum to

document minor modifications to the desalination plant site layout and the off-site product

water pipeline routes. In 2012, the Water Authority approved the Second Addendum to

document modifications to the off-site water conveyance facilities. The proposed pipeline

crossing Macario Canyon was analyzed as two different alignments in the FEIR: one using

trenchless construction methods north of Cannon Road (within open space), and one laying

the pipelines within the existing roadway/bridge. The Coastal Development Permit for the

Project further indicated that the pipelines would hang underneath the Cannon Road Bridge in

the event that the trenchless option was not selected. Per the currently approved project (as

analyzed in the Second Addendum), the pipeline would be installed underground within

Macario Canyon, south of the intersection of Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue, instead of

the two aforementioned options proposed in the FEIR, and would require a permanent

pumping well in the center of Macario Canyon.


5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT

The goal of the proposed Project changes is to enhance pipeline operational efficiency and

reliability as well as reduce the impacts to sensitive habitat within Macario Canyon associated with

the previous proposals. The Macario Canyon Pipeline Alignment Modifications involve

underground trenchless pipe installation crossing Macario Canyon. As stated previously, ancillary

facilities would be installed east of Faraday Avenue, within the City of Carlsbad’s future Veteran’s

Memorial Park. The ancillary facilities include an access road off of Faraday Avenue, a pump well

and air release valve vault, a blow off valve vault, several vents, and a storm drain with a riprap

energy dissipater. The FEIR analyzed this segment of pipeline under two scenarios: open

trenching within Cannon Road coupled with attaching the pipeline to the Cannon Road bridge;

and trenchless construction just north of Cannon Road across Macario Canyon. The Second

Addendum analyzed this segment of pipeline using trenchless construction south of the

intersection of Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue. Since the installation of this portion of the

Macario Canyon pipeline route was included in the FEIR and the Second Addendum using

trenchless construction, no further analysis of the underground pipeline installation beneath

Macario Canyon is required under CEQA. The minor change in alignment and similar construction

techniques beneath sensitive wetland areas would not represent a substantial change in the

Project or its effects.

The Project modifications shift the location of the pipeline in this area approximately 800 feet to

the south of the intersection of Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road and relocate ancillary facilities

east of Faraday Avenue, within the City of Carlsbad’s future Veteran’s Memorial Park, to allow for

operation and maintenance of the pipeline outside of Macario Canyon. A gated and paved

access road will be constructed to allow access to facilities east of Faraday Avenue. These

facilities include an approximately 225 square foot pump well and air release vault, an 80 square

foot blow off valve vault, several vents, and a storm drain with a riprap energy dissipater (Figures

3 through 5).

Construction of the trenchless tunnel for the pipeline would occur beneath an open space area

in Macario Canyon with portals located within the center median on Cannon Road and an open

space area within the future Veteran’s Memorial Park east of Faraday Avenue. The Water

Authority will establish a 40 foot wide subsurface easement for the pipeline under Macario

Canyon between the Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue portals, as well as an 80 by 80 foot

permanent easement for the ancillary facilities, and a 200 by 200 foot temporary construction

easement for the tunnel portal and staging area, east of Faraday Avenue. Importantly, the

pumping well in the center of Macario Canyon (proposed as part of the Second Addendum) has

been relocated to the permanent easement immediately east of Faraday Avenue.

Consequently, no ground disturbance would occur within Macario Canyon and impacts to

sensitive habitats would be avoided. No access to Macario Canyon will be required for


construction, operation, or maintenance of the pipeline. Construction of the pipeline and

ancillary facilities would take approximately 15 months and is anticipated to begin in early 2014.

A 24-foot by 12-foot tunnel pit will be constructed near the center median of Cannon Road as

the western entry location for the trenchless operation. From this location, excavation will

proceed using a roadheader tunnel excavator which would move through the excavated tunnel,

cutting earth with an articulated boom fitted with cutting teeth. Rubber tired underground loaders

with 2 cubic yard capacity would move the excavated material out of the tunnel.

From the eastern end, a tunnel boring machine will be launched from an 18 foot diameter tunnel

pit east of Faraday Avenue. A tunnel shield or tunnel boring machine (TBM) would be advanced

using hydraulic jacks against the tunnel ground supports (tunnel ribs). As the TBM advances the

tunnel support exits the tail shield and the ring steel set is then expanded using hydraulic jacks.

The TBM will tunnel into the completed western tunnel and be removed on skids to the Cannon

Road shaft where the TBM would be removed in sections.

Pipe loading in the western end of the tunnel would be by rubber tire pipe dolly and a pipe

saddle. Pipe joints will be taken in one at a time and welded to the previously installed pipe joint.

From the eastern end, a concrete slab will be placed on the floor of the tunnel to facilitate the

installation of the carrier pipe by direct jacking the pipe on redwood skids or casing spacers as

each joint is welded at the Faraday Avenue pit location.

Pipe joints are expected to be 20 feet, but other joint lengths can be used depending upon the

dimensions of the tunnel launching pit and interference in the shafts. Each pipe joint would be

supported on a precast concrete block near the pipe joint as the pipe is installed. The blocks are

constructed to allow for jacking and shimming each joint of pipe to final grade.

Low density cellular concrete would be pumped into the annular space between the pipe and

the tunnel. Bulkheads would be constructed at the low point of the tunnel reaches and backfill

would proceed upgrade to the receiving pit bulkheads. This tunneling method, as opposed to

horizontal directional drilling or microtunneling, does not require pressurized grout as part of the

tunneling method. Therefore, frac-out and caving are not expected to be an issue.

1111 1

Macario Tunnel Easements–City Of Carlsbad OptionFIGURE 3

Third Addendum, Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-05)7662

Docu

ment

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j76

6201

\MAP

DOC\

MAPS

\Add

endu

m\Ad

dend

um

SOURCE: TETRATECH 2013

NOTE: PIPELINE ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Proposed Macario Tunnel Design Station 101+50.00 to Station 117+73.72FIGURE 4


Docu

ment

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j76

6201

\MAP

DOC\

MAPS

\Add

endu

m\Ad

dend

um

SOURCE: TETRA TECH 2013

Faraday Avenue Macario Tunnel Pit Site PlanFIGURE 5


Docu

ment

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j76

6201

\MAP

DOC\

MAPS

\Add

endu

m\Ad

dend

um

SOURCE: TETRA TECH 2013


6.0 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ACTIONS

To process the proposed changes, the following Water Authority actions are required:

1. EIR 03-05(B) – Third Addendum to the Project’s certified FEIR; as a responsible

agency under CEQA, the Water Authority will be approving this Third Addendum

2. Approval of an amendment to the Design-Build Agreement for Product Water Pipeline

Improvements Relating to the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project entered into on

December 20, 2012, between the San Diego County Water Authority and Poseidon

Resources (Channelside) LP, and authorizing construction of the facilities described in

this Third Addendum.


7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the City of Carlsbad and Water

Authority’s action in approving the Project include the FEIR, First Addendum, Second Addendum,

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and additional responses provided

for comments submitted after publication of the FEIR.

The Third Addendum analyzes all 11 environmental issue areas that were included in the FEIR,

First Addendum, and Second Addendum, and discusses whether the proposed Project

modifications described in Section 5.0 would trigger significance criteria identified in the CEQA

Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163, in each of these areas. For each environmental issue

area, this Third Addendum provides a comparative analysis of the impacts presented in the

FEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum. The analysis includes a determination

regarding the occurrence of any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of

previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis is presented to determine whether there are

any changed circumstances or new information relative to the revised Project.


8.0 ANALYSIS

The following environmental analysis supports the Water Authority’s determination that approval

and implementation of the proposed Project modifications would not result in any new significant

environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts

covered under the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. This environmental analysis

is subject to all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the FEIR, First Addendum, Second

Addendum and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs.

As stated in Section 1.0, activities associated with the proposed modifications are subject to

the requirements and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, First Addendum, and

Second Addendum. Where such requirements apply and are relevant, they are noted in the

discussion below.

The FEIR, First Addendum, Second Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Program (MMRP) are on file at the Water Authority’s office, 4677 Overland Avenue, San Diego,

California, 92123,

The following presents the environmental analysis of impacts associated with the proposed

Project modifications. In instances where the impacts resulting from several Project components

would be similar, their corresponding analyses have been grouped together. In instances where

impacts differ by Project component, they are discussed separately.

Aesthetics

Analysis of aesthetic impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project

are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.1, pages 4.1-3 through 4.1-12. See also FEIR CEQA

Findings, pages 10 and 11.

In addition, the Carlsbad Desalination FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded

that because aesthetic impacts from construction activities would be short-term and within

limited areas, construction-related impacts to visual resources would be considered less than

significant. Similarly, the construction activities associated with the proposed Project

modifications would also be temporary and within limited areas and, therefore, would also result

in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics/visual resources.

Analysis of the Revised Project

Other than the temporary nature of construction-related visual impacts, no significant permanent

visual impacts will occur as a result of the Macario Canyon Pipeline Alignment Modification

changes. The ancillary facilities’ pump well and air release valve vault (225 square feet) and

blow off valve vault (80 square feet) located on the east side of Faraday Avenue will be

approximately 4 feet and 2 feet above ground, respectively. The vaults will also have several 3


foot tall air vents and an air release valve that will be located on the top of the vaults, as well as

an access ladder. The storm drain will have exclusion bars and a riprap energy dissipater. The

approximately 80 by 80 foot ancillary facilities area will be enclosed with bollards and a 4 foot

high access gate. There would be approximately 12 bollards that will be painted a greenish blue

color, Federal Standard 595, Color # 34300. The ancillary facilities will have a minor visual

impact in a limited area, and would be visible from a very limited number of vantage points due

to its size and the natural topography of the area. Therefore, the inclusion of these features

would result in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics/visual resources.

Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is

Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance

There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the Project would be

undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become

available relative to visual or aesthetic resources. No substantial changes in the aesthetic or

visual environment have occurred since certification of the FEIR, approval of the First

Addendum and Second Addendum and no substantial new sensitive receptors or scenic

resources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed Project modifications.

Conclusion

Based on the above, no new significant aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in previously

identified aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. All mitigation

measures previously adopted for the approved Project will apply to the proposed Project described

herein, as applicable. Therefore, the impacts to aesthetic resources and the proposed Project

modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Air Quality

Analysis of air quality impacts of the approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.2,

pages 4.2-10 through 4.2-21. See also FEIR CEQA Findings, page 11.

The Carlsbad Desalination FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that

impacts to air quality as a result of construction and operation of the approved Project were less

than significant. The FEIR had originally assumed that seven segments of 1,000 feet of pipeline

would be constructed simultaneously. Emission calculations were based on two crews placing

base material, four crews laying the pipeline in the trench, and three crews backfilling the trench

at any given time.



Construction of the proposed Project modifications would result in temporary increases in

criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction equipment. These temporary increases

were previously contemplated in the FEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum, and the

proposed Project modifications would require trenchless construction methods which would

have similar air emissions characteristics as the Macario Canyon tunnel construction analyzed

in the Second Addendum. As such, similar to the findings of the FEIR, First Addendum, and

Second Addendum the construction-related air pollution emissions from the proposed Project

modifications would be temporary and would not be expected to have a permanent significant

impact on ambient air quality.

The Project modifications do not propose any changes to the operational characteristics of the

desalination plant or pipeline; therefore, there are no potential increased direct or indirect

emissions associated with operation of the desalination plant or pipeline that were not discussed

in the Carlsbad FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum.



As discussed in the First Addendum to the FEIR, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires the

California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state agency charged with regulating statewide air

quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. GHG emissions were addressed in the First

Addendum in 2009 through the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC’s) conditional approval of

the Project’s Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan). The GHG

Plan provides for the assessment, reduction, and mitigation of GHG emissions, and establishes

a protocol for identifying, securing, monitoring, and updating measures to eliminate the Project’s

net carbon footprint. Once the Project is operational and all measures to reduce energy use at

the site have been taken, the protocol involves the following steps, completed each year:

1. Determine the energy consumed by the Project for the previous year

2. Determine San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) emission factor for delivered electricity

from its most recently published Annual Emissions Report

3. Calculate the Project’s gross indirect GHG emissions resulting from Project operations

by multiplying its electricity use by the emission factor

4. Calculate the Project’s net indirect GHG emissions by subtracting emissions avoided as

a result of the Project (Avoided Emissions) and any existing offset projects and/or

Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)

5. If necessary, purchase carbon offsets or RECs (or pay an in-lieu fee) to zero-out the

Project’s net indirect GHG emissions.


The following are elements of the plan, based on a draft “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Template”

provided by the CCC:

A. Increased Energy Efficiency (such as use of a pressure-exchanger energy recovery system

that captures energy from the discharge stream and high-energy efficiency pumps)

B. GHG Emission Reduction by Green Building Design

C. On-Site Solar Power Generation

D. Recovery of CO2 (carbon dioxide in a gaseous form will be added to the reverse osmosis

permeate in combination with calcium hydroxide or calcium carbonate in order to form

soluble calcium bicarbonate which adds hardness and alkalinity to the drinking water for

distribution system corrosion protection)

E. Avoided Emissions from Reducing Energy Needs for Water Reclamation (reduced

salinity of source water would reduce the need to remove salts from wastewater to meet

recycled water requirements)

F. Avoided Emissions from Displaced Imported Water

G. Avoided Emissions through Coastal Wetlands (carbon sequestration).

All energy use required to deliver product water would be incurred by pumps at the Carlsbad

Desalination Plant, and this energy use was previously analyzed in the FEIR, First Addendum

and Second Addendum for the Carlsbad Desalination Plant Project. GHG emissions from

construction activities associated with the proposed Project modifications would not exceed

those identified in the FEIR, and 25,000 metric tons of carbon offsets as mitigation for

construction-related emissions from the construction of the desalination plant will be purchased,

which far exceeds the offsets that would actually be needed for construction-related impacts,

even with the addition of these modifications.

The proposed Project modifications would not result in an increase in overall GHG emissions. The

Project’s GHG Plan was approved by the CCC in August 2008. With implementation of the GHG

Plan, the Project will demonstrate a “net zero” impact on GHG emissions from indirect sources

(electrical energy consumption). The Project as revised would, therefore, not increase the severity

of previously identified air quality impacts, nor would it result in any new significant effects related

to air pollutant emissions that were not previously identified in the FEIR, First Addendum and

Second Addendum.

Conclusion

The proposed Project modifications are consistent with the GHG Plan requirement

demonstrating a “net zero” impact on GHG emissions from indirect sources (electrical energy

consumption). The proposed Project as revised would not increase the severity of previously


identified air quality impacts, nor would it result in any new significant effects related to air

emissions that were not previously identified in the FEIR, First Addendum, and Second

Addendum. Additionally, in light of the wide range of global warming activity prior to the

certification of the FEIR in June 2006, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances

under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance

which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified and the First

Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, has since been identified. Therefore, the

impacts to air quality and the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a

subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162

and 15163.

Biological Resources

Analysis of biological resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved

Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.3, pages 4.3-18 through 4.3-54. See also FEIR

CEQA Findings, pages 12 through 14.

Analysis of the Revised Project.

Implementation of the proposed Project modifications would result in temporary impacts to

approximately 0.92 acre and permanent impacts to 0.15 acre of non-native annual grassland at

the proposed temporary construction and permanent easement location shown on Figure 3. All

work will be contained within this temporary work area footprint, in addition to the portal location

within Cannon Road.

Among those impacts addressed in the FEIR were 3.71 acres of impact to annual grassland.

The 3.71 acres of impact to annual grassland were mapped along the potential pipeline

segments located just north of Palomar Airport and in the Shadowridge area. Since the impacts

to annual grassland that would occur as a result of the currently proposed Project modifications

in open space adjacent to Macario Canyon would be less than the total acres anticipated to be

impacted under the FEIR, the impacts associated with the Project modification are within the

scope of the analysis of the FEIR. With implementation of FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1,

temporary impacts to approximately 0.92 acre and permanent impacts to 0.15 acre of

annual non-native grassland in the open space east of Faraday Avenue are considered less

than significant.

Construction activities would also result in indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive habitats and wildlife,

including potential impacts from construction-generated dust, siltation, and noise. Implementation of

FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-3, 4.3-4, and 4.3-5 would ensure that impacts remain below a level of

significance. Consistent with the FEIR, First Addendum and the Second Addendum with

implementation of mitigation, indirect impacts from construction activities would be considered less

than significant.


Based on the above analysis, the modifications to the pipeline tunnel and ancillary facilities

would not result in impacts that were not previously identified and mitigated per the FEIR, First

Addendum and Second Addendum. With mitigation, impacts to biological resources would be

similar to those discussed in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum and would

remain less than significant with the proposed Project modifications.



There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken,

and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to

biological resources. The additional mitigation imposed by the CCC and the Regional Water

Quality Control Board does not constitute a changed circumstance or new information of

substantial importance, as indicated in the First Addendum and Second Addendum. The

mitigation acreage required by these two agencies was imposed pursuant to their respective

responsibilities under separate regulatory schemes, i.e., the Coastal Act and the California Water

Code, both of which employ different standards of review than CEQA’s “significant impact”

threshold. Thus, the additional mitigation acreage did not involve new significant environmental

effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Conclusion

None of the proposed Project changes or additions regarding biological resources involve new

significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. Additionally, there

are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken,

and no new information of substantial importance regarding biological resources which was not

known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified, and the First Addendum

and Second Addendum approved has since been identified. Therefore, the biological resources

impacts and the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or

supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Cultural Resources

Analysis of cultural impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are

contained in the FEIR, Section 4.4, pages 4.4-14 through 4.4-27. See also FEIR CEQA


The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that cultural resource impacts

were less than significant with mitigation implemented in previously undisturbed areas near

known archaeological and paleontological resources sites.



The proposed temporary construction and permanent easement location east of Faraday

Avenue was surveyed by a Dudek archaeologist, and no cultural resources were identified. As

a result, implementation of project work at this location would not have an effect on cultural

resources. Any work conducted at this site would also be subject to the mitigation in Section

4.4.4 of the FEIR, as applicable. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure

that impacts remain less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications would

not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the FEIR,

First Addendum and Second Addendum and therefore would not change the FEIR, First

Addendum and Second Addendum conclusions.



The potential for significant impacts on cultural resources within the area of potential effect of

the Project has not changed since the time of certification of the FEIR, First Addendum and

Second Addendum. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of

substantial importance relative to cultural resources have been identified.

Conclusion

None of the proposed Project modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial

increase in previously identified impacts regarding cultural resources. Additionally, there are no

substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new

information of substantial importance regarding cultural resources which was not known and could

not have been known when the FEIR was certified and the First Addendum and Second

Addendum were approved has since been identified. Therefore, the impacts to cultural resources

as a result of the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or

supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Geology and Soils

Analysis of geology/soils impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved

Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.5, pages 4.5-10 through 4.5-17. See also FEIR

CEQA Findings, pages 15 and 16.

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum found that long-term impacts due to

unstable soil types and seismic-related geologic hazards would be less than significant with

mitigation measures incorporated. The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum also

found that during construction activities, erosion could be accelerated, which could undermine

slopes, cause siltation of surface waters, and expose and damage underground facilities. This

impact was found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.


Additionally, the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum found that impacts to mineral

resources would be less than significant.


Geologic impacts of the proposed Project modifications would be mitigated to a less-than-

significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, which requires that a pre-

construction geotechnical investigation be prepared to address geotechnical considerations. All

recommendations of the geotechnical investigation will be implemented.

The erosion potential for the proposed Project modifications would be similar to the approved

Project. Impacts would remain less-than-significant with the implementation of Mitigation

Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, which require that the Project prepare a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Stormwater Management Plan, respectively.

The Project area is not suitable for mineral extraction. Therefore, the proposed Project

modifications would not result in impacts to geology and soils beyond what was originally

evaluated in the FEIR, the First Addendum and the Second Addendum.



There is no potential for significant changes in geological, seismic, soils, or mineral resource

conditions within the area of potential effect of the Project since the time of certification of the

FEIR, and approval of the First Addendum and Second Addendum because such resources are

relatively static. Additionally, no new information regarding unknown geologic hazards,

conditions, or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no

new information of substantial importance relative to geology have been identified.

Conclusion

None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project modifications involve new significant

impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to geology, soils, or mineral

resources. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the

Project will be undertaken and no new information regarding geological resources which was

not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified and the First

Addendum and the Second Addendum were approved has since been identified. Therefore, the

geology/soils impacts and the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a

subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Analysis of hazards impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are

contained in the FEIR, Section 4.6, pages 4.6-9 through 4.6-17. See also FEIR CEQA Findings,

pages 16 and 17.

The FEIR, First Addendum and the Second Addendum determined that Project construction

would require grading and trenching that could potentially disturb and release hazardous

materials into the environment from sites located in proximity to the construction areas. Potential

for release or exposure of existing subsurface contamination could result during construction.

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum included measures to mitigate this potential

for exposure to existing contamination sites during construction. Specifically, FEIR Mitigation

Measure 4.6-1 would mitigate the potential for exposure of existing contamination by requiring

construction monitoring in areas identified as having potential risks, and appropriate actions to

be taken if contamination is encountered.


During construction, ground-disturbing activities such as grading or excavation associated

with the proposed Project modifications are not anticipated to encounter contaminated soils.

The proposed Project modifications would occur along a previously approved pipeline

alignment underneath a biological preserve. However, to ensure that impacts would remain

less than significant, the proposed Project modifications would be subject to FEIR Mitigation

Measure 4.6-1 mentioned above.

During construction, gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, solvents, paint, and welding

gases would be used at all proposed Project locations. The Project would implement FEIR

Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, which requires that the Project prepare and implement an SWPPP that

will include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control

measures. Additionally, during operations, the proposed facilities would be subject to the Water

Authority’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which requires that the Water Authority, in

conjunction with the local fire department, take appropriate response actions in the case of an

accidental release of hazardous materials during transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous

materials. With the implementation of the Water Authority’s ERP and FEIR Mitigation Measure

4.7-1, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials during construction and

operation would be similar to the approved Project and would remain less than significant with the

proposed Project modifications.

As concluded in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum, the use of pipelines to

distribute potable water would not pose a hazardous risk to the public or the environment. Long-

term hazardous risks associated with the Macario Canyon Pipeline Alignment Modification and

ancillary facilities would be similar to the impacts associated with the off-site pipeline impacts

under the approved Project and, therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.




There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be

undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance relative to hazards or

hazardous materials that has become available since the certification of the FEIR and the

approval of First Addendum and Second Addendum.

Conclusion

With consideration of the above discussion, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts and

the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental

EIR as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Analysis of hydrology/water quality impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the

approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.7, pages 4.7-10 through 4.7-25. See also

FEIR CEQA Findings, pages 17 through 20.

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that construction of the approved

Project could result in significant short-term surface water quality impacts associated with

exposed soils, fuels, lubricants, and solid and liquid wastes that would be used and stored

within active construction areas. Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, which require that the

Project prepare an SWPPP and, if appropriate, a Stormwater Management Plan (if grading or

building permits are determined to be necessary) were found to reduce water quality impacts to

less than significant.

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that impacts to hydrology and water

quality due to installation of the off-site pipelines and associated infrastructure would be less than

significant. The majority of the proposed Project modifications would be installed or repaired

underground and, therefore, similar to the approved Project, would not cause increases in

impervious surfaces or runoff. Long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality from the proposed

Project modifications would therefore also be less than significant.

Similar to the approved Project, the proposed changes could also result in short-term

construction-related surface water impacts that would be reduced to less-than-significant levels

with implementation of FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2.

Portions of the Macario Canyon Pipeline Alignment Modifications are within the flood zone that

is a tributary to Aqua Hedionda Creek (FEMA 2012). However, these portions of the project are

all located belowground; aboveground features such as the proposed temporary construction

and permanent easement location east of Faraday Avenue would be located outside of the flood


zone. The FEIR determined that impacts may occur along certain pipeline alignments that are

located within a 100-year flood zone. In these areas, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-

3, which requires that construction activities occur during the dry months between May 1 and

September 30, ensures that impacts would remain below a level of significance. Consistent with

the FEIR, the Project with the proposed modifications would also implement Mitigation Measure

4.7-3 and would not result in impacts associated with flood zones.

Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is



undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance relative to hydrology or

water quality that has become available since the certification of the FEIR and the approval of

the First Addendum and Second Addendum.

Conclusion

The proposed Project modifications would not result in any new significant hydrologic/water

quality impacts, and no substantial increase in previously identified hydrologic/water quality

impacts would occur with implementation of applicable laws, regulation, and mitigation as

discussed above. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed Project modifications regarding

hydrology and water quality do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR


Land Use/Planning

Analysis of land use impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are


Findings, page 20.

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that land use impacts would be

less than significant, because short-term construction related effects that could cause land use

conflicts were determined to be less-than-significant, and because the project would not conflict

with zoning or land use policies.


The evaluation and findings from the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum do not

change with the proposed Project modifications. Construction would result in short-term impacts

to surrounding land uses. Short-term impacts would include traffic delays, noise, visual effects,

and dust, all of which are within the scope of the analysis contained in the FEIR, First Addendum

and Second Addendum, as noted in the appropriate sections of this Addendum. Land use impacts

associated with the proposed Project modifications would be similar to the approved Project;

these impacts were found to be less than significant.


It is important to note that zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of

facilities used for the production, generation, storage, or transmission of water (California

Government Code Section 53091). The policies and goals in both the Land Use Element and the

Public Facility Element of the County’s General Plan promote the efforts of the Water Authority

and water districts to provide for storage, treatment, and transmission facilities to meet demand

(County of San Diego 2010). The small footprint of the aboveground facilities within Veteran’s

Memorial Park would not represent a substantial amount of land being removed from recreational

use. Lastly, construction within existing roadways would not preclude future use of roads following

construction, as all of these project components would be located underground.




undertaken, because there are no new land uses or substantial changes in land use policies or

requirements that would affect the Project. No new information of substantial importance relative

to land use has become available since the certification of the FEIR and the approval of the First

Addendum and Second Addendum.

Conclusion

Based on the above, no new significant land use impacts or a substantial increase in previously

identified land use impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project modifications.

Therefore, the impacts to land use and the proposed Project modifications do not meet the

standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162

and 15163.

Noise and Vibration

An analysis of noise impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are

contained in the FEIR, Section 4.9, pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-14. See also FEIR CEQA Findings,

pages 20 and 21. The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum, analysis indicated that all

Project-related construction activities would comply with the local jurisdictions’ noise ordinance

for allowable construction hours. Due to compliance with construction noise restrictions, it is not

anticipated that excavation and installation of the pipeline using tunnelling methods or

construction of the ancillary facilities would result in a significant noise impact based on the

applicable significance criteria. It was estimated in the FEIR that maximum noise levels would

range up to approximately 85 decibels (dB), while the average sound level for an 8-hour work

day was expected to range up to approximately 75 dB.

Further, the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum, indicate that trenchless methods

would be used at several areas. Noise impacts associated with trenchless operations are similar


to open trench pipeline construction. However, rather than the construction noise progressing

linearly, the noise would be confined to the excavated pits. Thus, noise impacts could last for

several weeks rather than a few days at the areas adjacent to the pits. Trenchless equipment

would involve the construction methods discussed in Section 5.0. Excavating the launch and

receiving pits would generally be the most intense noise source. Thereafter, the noise impact

would be less intense but a persistent noise source. The construction specifications will require

the contractor to comply with the applicable noise ordinance. Construction noise would not exceed

established standards. Therefore, the noise impact is not anticipated to be significant.


As discussed in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum trenchless construction activities

generate maximum noise levels of 85 dBA at approximately 50 feet. The actual sound level for an

eight-hour work day would be substantially less due to the intermittent use of specific pieces of

equipment during the work day, and would range up to approximately 75 dB at 50 feet. The FEIR

concluded that due to the intermittent nature of construction noise and the requirement in the

construction specification to comply with all applicable local noise ordinances, impacts to sensitive

receptors during construction of the pipelines using trenchless construction methods would be less

than significant. The nearest noise sensitive receptor to the proposed Macario Canyon pipeline

alignment modifications consist of apartments located approximately 600 feet to the north, across

from Faraday Avenue. At this distance construction noise impacts would be substantially less than

those previously analyzed in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. Therefore, the

proposed modifications along the pipeline route would not result in any new significant noise

impacts or more severe construction noise impacts than those considered in the FEIR, First

Addendum and Second Addendum.

Additionally, consistent with the FEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3, 4.3-4,

and 4.3-5, would ensure that indirect noise impacts to sensitive habitats and species remain

below a level of significance. Therefore, the Macario Canyon pipeline alignment modification

and ancillary facilities would not result in new significant indirect noise impacts or increase

the severity of impacts identified in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum and

would not change the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum conclusion.

Once construction is complete the pump well would only be used in infrequent circumstances,

for limited periods of time and would not generate a substantial amount of noise, and impacts

would not be beyond the scope of the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum analysis.

Similar to the approved Project, operational noise impacts of the proposed Project modifications

would be less than significant.




There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project

modifications will be undertaken, because there are no new substantial changes in noise or

vibration policies or requirements that would affect the Project. No new substantial sources of

noise or vibration would be introduced within the area, and no new information of substantial

importance relative to noise and vibration has become available since the certification of the FEIR

and the approval of the First Addendum and Second Addendum.

Conclusion

Based on the above, no new significant noise or vibration impacts or a substantial increase in

previously identified noise or vibration impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project

modifications. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts and the proposed Project modifications do

not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,

Sections 15162 and 15163.

Transportation and Traffic

Analysis of traffic impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are



The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that the approved Project would

result in short-term construction traffic impacts associated with the portions of the off-site pipeline

that is to be located within existing roadways. Temporary construction traffic trips include crew

vehicles and deliveries of pipeline and other materials. The FEIR, First Addendum and Second

Addendum included Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 that require that construction will not

result in unacceptable levels of service during peak hour periods on any affected roadways, and

that specific traffic control measures as set forth within an approved traffic control plan are

implemented. With implementation of these mitigation measures, traffic impacts were considered

less than significant.

The FEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum also concluded that long-term traffic

impacts from inspection and monitoring activities would be less than significant, due to the small

percentages that these activities would add to total daily traffic on affected roadways.


The proposed Project modifications would have similar short-term construction related impacts

as those disclosed in the FEIR, First Addendum and particularly the Second Addendum. Since

the proposed Project modifications would change the location of an approved pipeline, trips

associated with inspection of these facilities are considered previously approved and are not

considered new traffic trips. The proposed Project modifications would not result in a substantial


increase in traffic on local roadways. Therefore, long-term impacts to transportation and traffic

would be similar to the approved Project and impacts would remain less than significant.



There are no substantial changes under which the Project will be undertaken, because there are

no substantial changes in traffic characteristics or requirements from what was in place at the time

that the FEIR was certified and the First Addendum and the Second Addendum were approved.

No new information of substantial importance relative to traffic has become available since the

certification of the FEIR, and the approval of the First Addendum and Second Addendum.

Conclusion

Based on the above, no new significant traffic impacts or a substantial increase in previously

identified traffic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project modifications.

Therefore, the traffic impacts and the proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards

for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and

15163.

Public Utilities and Service Systems

Analysis of public utilities and service impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the

approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.11, pages 4.11-6 through 4.11-22. See

also FEIR CEQA Findings, pages 23 through 25.

The analysis of public services and utilities in the Carlsbad Desalination FEIR, First Addendum

and Second Addendum concluded that the water treatment plant and associated infrastructure

would not result in significant impacts to fire protection services, schools, wastewater treatment

facilities, landfills, stormwater drainage facilities, or electric power services.


The proposed Project modifications would not result in residential, commercial, or industrial

growth, and therefore, similar to the approved Project, would not require additional services or

utilities. The revised Project would not result in an increase in the maximum energy use that

was contemplated in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. All energy use required

to deliver product water to the components of the proposed Project modifications would be

incurred by pumps at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant, and this energy use was previously

analyzed in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum.





no substantial changes in public utilities or services, or to the requirements of agencies that

provide such services, from what was in place at the time that the FEIR was certified and the

First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved. No new information of substantial

importance relative to public utilities or services has become available since the certification of

the FEIR.

Conclusion

Based on the above, no new significant public utilities and service system impacts or a

substantial increase in previously identified public utilities and service system impacts would

occur as a result of the proposed Project modifications. Therefore, the public utilities and service

system impacts and proposed Project modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent

or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.


9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Analysis of cumulative impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project

are contained in the FEIR, Section 5.0, pages 5-1 through 5-13. See also FEIR CEQA Findings,

pages 25 through 27.


The type and extent of construction activities and the operational characteristics of the proposed

Project modifications would not be substantially different from what was evaluated in the FEIR,

First Addendum and Second Addendum for the approved Project. Therefore, no changes relative

to the analysis or conclusions regarding cumulative impacts would occur with the proposed Project

modifications, and the findings of the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum remain the

same for the revised Project.

Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under Which the Project is


Since certification of the FEIR and approval of the First and Second Addendum additional

cumulative development may have been proposed and/or constructed. However, the analysis

contained in the First Addendum and Second Addendum occurred during a severe economic

downturn, which has resulted in a virtual curtailment of development activities within the Project

area. The minor amount of land development projects that have been proposed and/or

developed in the intervening time since the preparation of the First Addendum and Second

Addendum is not considered to be substantial. The following provides a cumulative analysis of

the proposed Project modifications.

Aesthetics

Because the proposed Project modifications are minor and they have been designed to have

minimal visual impacts, the incremental effect of the proposed Project modifications on any

potential significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative aesthetic

impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified and

First and Second Addendum were approved that has since been identified. Therefore, the

effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative aesthetic impacts do not

meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,



Air Quality

The Project’s contribution to temporary regional air quality impacts is not considered to be

significant. In addition, because Project construction occupies a relatively small area at any

given time, it is not anticipated that any significant localized cumulative impacts will result. This

is primarily due to the short-term nature of cumulative effects within any given location along the

Project construction route. Any additional cumulative development would not change these

conclusions because the scope of the cumulative development is relatively small within the

context of the air basin, and because as noted in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second

Addendum construction-related emissions would be short-term in nature. There would be no

new operational air pollutant emissions not already considered in the FEIR, First Addendum or

Second Addendum.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative air quality


the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has since been identified.

Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative air quality

impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA

Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Biological Resources

As noted in this Addendum, the proposed Project modifications do not involve new

significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. This

conclusion would not be changed with additional cumulative development due to the

limited scope of cumulative development.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative biological



Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative biological



Cultural Resources

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum cumulative impacts analysis for cultural

resources concluded that impacts on cultural resources related to cumulative development

could be significant if important cultural resources are destroyed as a result of development.

The mitigation measures required for the proposed Project provides for avoidance,


documentation, and/or recovery of important cultural resources, and as a result, all impacts

related to cultural resources are reduced to less-than-significant levels. These same measures

would apply to any additional cumulative development, and therefore the level of cumulative

impact and required mitigation measures would not change.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative cultural

resource impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was

certified and the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has since been

identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative

cultural resource impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR


Geology and Soils

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that the Project will require

relatively minor site preparation and excavation of soils. Project mitigation to control and

address erosion and seismic and soils hazards, in conjunction with similar standard measures

required of cumulative development, would reduce cumulative impacts to less-than-significant

levels. Any additional cumulative development would have similar levels of impact on geology

and soils and would be subject to similar requirements and mitigation measures.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative

geology/soils impacts which were not known and could not have been known when the FEIR

was certified and the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has since

been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding

cumulative geology/soils impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental

EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Project, as well as other cumulative development, would be subject to regulatory controls

that would result in minimization of hazards, and therefore the FEIR, First Addendum and

Second Addendum concluded that the Project would not contribute to cumulative considerable

increases in hazards or hazardous materials. Any additional cumulative development would

have similar regulatory controls.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative hazard




Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative hazards



Hydrology and Water Quality

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that water quality and hydrology

issues would be temporary (construction-related) in nature and would not contribute to

cumulatively significant impacts. Impacts of any additional cumulative development would be

similar, and in fact would be subject to newer more stringent regulatory control measures.



hydrology/water quality impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the

FEIR was certified and the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has

since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding

cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or

supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.

Land Use and Planning

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum concluded that the Project would not

contribute to significant impacts resulting from cumulative development that may have the effect

of dividing an established community or conflicting with land use or environmental policies.

Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on any potential significant cumulative impact

would not be cumulatively considerable. This conclusion would also apply to any additional

cumulative development.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative land use



Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative land use



Noise and Vibration

The FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum identified cumulative noise and vibration

impacts to be primarily related to construction noise. However, within the time frame of Project

construction, it is not anticipated that those cumulative effects would reach a level of

significance because of noise restrictions required for construction projects, and because the


time frame for construction of the proposed Project is relatively short. Any additional cumulative

development would not change these conclusions because of the short duration for construction

of the proposed Project modifications.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative noise and

vibration impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was

certified and the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has since been

identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative

noise and vibration impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR


Transportation and Traffic

The cumulative impacts analysis for transportation and traffic considered the intersections and

road segments to which the Project could contribute to a cumulative impact. Similar to noise

impacts, Project traffic impacts are primarily associated with construction. Since the time frame

for construction is relatively short and traffic control plans to minimize traffic impacts are

required, it is not anticipated that a substantial increase in current traffic levels resulting from

cumulative development will occur prior to completion of Project construction. Therefore,

temporary traffic impacts associated with the Project will cease prior to any substantial

cumulative traffic impacts being realized on local roadways. Any additional cumulative

development would not change these conclusions because the construction travel routes for the

additional projects are not anticipated to substantially conflict with cumulative construction traffic

of the proposed Project.


undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative traffic



Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding cumulative traffic impacts

do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,


Public Utilities and Service Systems

The cumulative impacts analysis for energy and wastewater were considered to be less than

significant, primarily based on capacity and reliability features built into existing systems. The

additional cumulative development would not change the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR,

First Addendum and Second Addendum because they would not result in substantial additional

demand on such systems.




utilities/services impacts which were not known and could not have been known when the FEIR

was certified and the First Addendum and Second Addendum were approved, that has since

been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative development regarding

cumulative utilities/services impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or

supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.


10.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

Analysis of growth-inducing impacts of the approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section

9.0, pages 9-1 through 9-7. See also FEIR CEQA Findings, pages 54 and 55.


The proposed Project changes consist of minor modifications to the desalination water

distribution system. The operation of the Project will not change from what was evaluated in the

FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. Therefore, no changes relative to the analysis

or conclusions related to growth inducement would occur with the proposed Project revisions.

Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is



no substantial changes in growth potential or growth planning that would affect the analysis

contained in the FEIR, First Addendum and Second Addendum. No new information of

substantial importance relative to growth inducement has become available since the

certification of the FEIR and the approval of the First Addendum and Second Addendum.


11.0 CONCLUSION

Impacts associated with the proposed Project modifications would not result in a new significant

impact or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts per the Carlsbad

Desalination Plant 2006 FEIR, the 2009 First Addendum, or the 2012 Second Addendum. There

are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken,

and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have

been known when the FEIR was certified and the First and Second Addendums were approved,

and that have since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications do not meet

the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,

Sections 15162 and 15163. As such, this Third Addendum to the FEIR satisfies CEQA

requirements for the proposed Project modifications.


12.0 REFERENCES

City of Carlsbad. 2006. Carlsbad Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Final

Environmental Impact Report. Certified June 13, 2006.

City of Carlsbad. 2009. CEQA Addendum for the Precise Development Plan and Desalination

Plant Project Final EIR. August 2009.

County of San Diego. 2010. General Plan, as amended. Accessed March 31, 2010.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/existgp/landuse.pdf.

FEMA. (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map, San

Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 768 of 2375. Map Number

06073C0768G. Map Revised May 16, 2012.

SDCRWQCB (San Diego County Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2012. San Diego

Region (9) Hydrologic Basin Planning Area. Revised April 1995. Accessed on February

1, 2012 at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.

Water Authority (San Diego County Water Authority). 2012. CEQA Addendum for the Precise

Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project Final EIR. November 2012.